17/XII [1903, Geneva].

It is time—long past time—for us to establish close correspondence with you, although you don't like to correspond; but there's no way around it. Lanya, of course, wrote to you about her trip;¹ she left with the hope that peace would be restored in the party and work would resume. But she has been greatly deceived. There is no peace whatsoever, only hypocrisy and throwing logs under the wheels "within the framework of the statutes."

In No. 53 [preaching benevolence continues, it is true, but] in the article "Our Congress" it is said that the cause of the disagreement was the view on the C.C., that the Martovists were against bureaucratic formalism, against the C.C.'s chief occupation being to "drag and not let go," etc.² As if anyone had ever been in favor of this! This is incorrect: they split over the composition of the centers! Now they have concocted all sorts of disagreements and cry that it was because of these that they split. By depicting the matter in this way, they cast aspersions on the entire majority and on the C.C. elected by that majority. And in order to prevent them from—quietly and [nobly] politely trampling the majority and C.C. in the mud while justifying themselves—they wanted to conceal a number of documents: part of the congress protocols,³ the report of the Siberian delegate Trotsky (circulated by the minority to the committees), "Dana's letter,"⁴ widely distributed abroad—Lenin demanded publicity.⁵ They became furious, cursed Lenin as a Schweitzer and so on, but declared that the congress protocols would be published, and immediately added that the League protocols would also be published. The League protocols are utterly filthy. On account of this filth [part of] the party majority left the hall. Martov, in his speech,⁶ went so far as to accuse the majority of drawing up false lists! Is this not filth! True, they proposed to strike from the League congress protocols everything of a personal character,⁷ but then a completely false picture of the League congress would result; it would not be visible that the minority had turned the League congress into an arena for settling accounts with the majority... They wanted to make the League congress an instrument of agitation by [incorrectly] striking out everything that compromised them. The majority replied: we are not afraid of publication, but either everything or nothing!

Among the young people, among visitors, they continue to conduct agitation against the C.C., crying about the C.C.'s incapacity, which does not issue leaflets, does not supply the committees with literature. Finally, the other day it was announced that the minority had set up their own route, which can carry 30 poods a month, that they themselves bear the expenses; let the C.C. supply only the literature, they will deliver half of it for free to the C.C., while the other half will go to "their" committees!⁸ Something monstrous!

Plekhanov sees that the minority is compromising itself and is changing course, cursing both sides. We have received resolutions from 9 committees condemning the disorganizational attempts of the minority. But why is the Caucasus silent? The Caucasus is put forward as an example of C.C. despotism. In the Caucasus, they say, it rages and provokes general indignation. Write in more detail about how things stand there; is the minority strong there. Let the committees, if they are theirs, send resolutions as soon as possible. You naturally know about Kiev's rising up against the C.C. and calling on other committees to do the same, going about and agitating.⁹ In Russia a terrible demoralization has set in. One can put an end to this only by convening a new congress in the shortest time possible. Is the Caucasus reliable? Don't speak of the congress yet, but prepare delegates, obtain a mandate for yourselves. This is extremely important; it is necessary in any case to put an end to all this demoralization. Address No. 9—for the editorial office, No. 10 for us. Here is another address for letters to us: No. 26.

Inform us immediately upon receipt of this letter.¹⁰

¹ This refers to G. M. Krzhizhanovsky's trip abroad (to Geneva) at Lenin's invitation for negotiations with the opposition. G. M. Krzhizhanovsky stayed in Geneva from November 19–20 to December 1, inclusive.

² For more on this article, see note 16 to N. K. Krupskaya's letter of December 10 (above, document 127, p. 43), and Lenin's assessment of the position of the new *Iskra* expressed in this article is set forth in his note on the position of the new *Iskra* (above, document 126, pp. 35–37).

³ Attempts to "conceal" "part of the congress protocols" were manifested by the Menshevik majority (B. A. Koltsov, A. N. Potresov) of the protocol commission of the second congress of the R.S.-D.R.P. (see *Lenin Collection* VI, documents 31, 32, 33, 37, pp. 276–282 and 294; *Lenin Collection* VII, document 51b, p. 89).

⁴ Dana's letter on "the causes and significance of the split" at first also circulated in the party by hand as an "illegal" document. It was later published by Martov together with a specially written preface by Dana to the letter in the pamphlet "The Struggle Against 'Siege Conditions' in the R.S.-D.R.P." (Geneva, 1904, pp. 83–96).

⁵ "Lenin demanded publicity" in his "Letter to the Editorial Office of *Iskra*" regarding Plekhanov's article "What Not to Do?," published in No. 53 of *Iskra* (*Collected Works*, vol. IV, pp. 315–318).

⁶ In the supplementary report on the second congress of the party at the League congress (see *Protocols* of the League congress, 1904 ed., pp. 63–64).

⁷ This proposal was formulated in Dana's official letter to Lenin of December 1 (above, document 115, p. 18).

⁸ This was proposed to Lengnik by Dana (see above N. K. Krupskaya's letter to Russia of December 14, document 132, p. 60).

⁹ For more on this, see above in N. K. Krupskaya's letter of December 10 and note 12 to it (document 127, pp. 39 and 42).

¹⁰ For the continuation of the correspondence (L. B. Krasin's reply letter), see below, document 156 (p. 135).